Revolting consumers: a revisionist account of the 1925 ban on photography in English and Welsh courts and its implications for debate about who is able to produce, manage and consume images of the trial
This paper offers a revisionist history of the banning of photography in English and Welsh courts in 1925 and explores the contention that a complete rationale for the ban has never been adequately articulated. While existing accounts of the ban have placed emphasis on the outrage caused by press co...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | International journal of law in context 2018-12, Vol.14 (4), p.559-580 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 580 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 559 |
container_title | International journal of law in context |
container_volume | 14 |
creator | Mulcahy, Linda |
description | This paper offers a revisionist history of the banning of photography in English and Welsh courts in 1925 and explores the contention that a complete rationale for the ban has never been adequately articulated. While existing accounts of the ban have placed emphasis on the outrage caused by press coverage of a handful of sensational murder trials, this paper offers the first comprehensive analysis of photographs of trial scenes in the decades leading up to the ban. In doing so, it argues that the exposure of the legal system to scrutiny by the press and public, made possible by new technologies and reporting practices, was much more pervasive than has previously been suggested. It also contends that, although parliamentarians claimed that the purpose of the ban was to protect vulnerable members of the public, it actually did a much better job of preserving the interests of the legal, political and social elite, including judges, against a backdrop of fears about an increasingly disrespectful populace. More particularly, it is suggested that the ban allowed the state to take back its monopoly over the production, management and consumption of images of judges and other key actors in the courtroom in an effort to re-impose social order and retain the mystery of law. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1017/S1744552318000241 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_rmit_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2136851089</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cupid>10_1017_S1744552318000241</cupid><informt_id>10.3316/agispt.20221108077712</informt_id><sourcerecordid>2136851089</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c435t-625b44f6969ad43d4ff6bcc10db8e771286984397c46ae70a05bb2e4fa7b9bb03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1Uctu1TAQjRBIlMIHsBuJLRf8yosdqgpFqoREW7G0xo6TuErsYDut-ov9Kpze27JAXc3o6JwzZ2aK4j0lnyih9ecLWgtRlozThhDCBH1RHG3Qriw5ffnUM_66eBPjNSG8aXh7VNz_Mjd-StYNoL2L62xC_AIIwdzYaL2zMQFq7VeXwPeQRgO0ZSUodOAdLKNPfgi4jHdgHZy6YbJxBHQd_DZT7rIypPgA2FztvExWY8rOEXofoDMKkwFUfk1wO3qwmawmA8nDEny3avMRZnQ4mAeTQ8hslJH4GCkFi9Pb4lWPUzTvDvW4uPp2enlytjv_-f3HydfznRa8TLuKlUqIvmqrFjvBO9H3ldKakk41pq4pa6q2EbyttajQ1ARJqRQzosdatUoRflx82PvmfH9WE5O8zku6PFIyyqumpKRpM4vuWTr4GIPp5RJy6HAnKZHby-R_L8uas70mzDZJHGxckowGgx6ldflcG-zDIDtvNxvOafVIY4QxmieTetshW_HDeJxVsN1g_qV8PsBfehKz9A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2136851089</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Revolting consumers: a revisionist account of the 1925 ban on photography in English and Welsh courts and its implications for debate about who is able to produce, manage and consume images of the trial</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>Cambridge University Press Journals Complete</source><creator>Mulcahy, Linda</creator><creatorcontrib>Mulcahy, Linda</creatorcontrib><description>This paper offers a revisionist history of the banning of photography in English and Welsh courts in 1925 and explores the contention that a complete rationale for the ban has never been adequately articulated. While existing accounts of the ban have placed emphasis on the outrage caused by press coverage of a handful of sensational murder trials, this paper offers the first comprehensive analysis of photographs of trial scenes in the decades leading up to the ban. In doing so, it argues that the exposure of the legal system to scrutiny by the press and public, made possible by new technologies and reporting practices, was much more pervasive than has previously been suggested. It also contends that, although parliamentarians claimed that the purpose of the ban was to protect vulnerable members of the public, it actually did a much better job of preserving the interests of the legal, political and social elite, including judges, against a backdrop of fears about an increasingly disrespectful populace. More particularly, it is suggested that the ban allowed the state to take back its monopoly over the production, management and consumption of images of judges and other key actors in the courtroom in an effort to re-impose social order and retain the mystery of law.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1744-5523</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1744-5531</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1017/S1744552318000241</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press</publisher><subject>20th century ; Bans ; Cameras ; Criminal justice, Administration of ; Debates ; Fair trial ; Photography ; Pistorius, Oscar ; Social media ; Social networks ; Technological innovations ; Trials</subject><ispartof>International journal of law in context, 2018-12, Vol.14 (4), p.559-580</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c435t-625b44f6969ad43d4ff6bcc10db8e771286984397c46ae70a05bb2e4fa7b9bb03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744552318000241/type/journal_article$$EHTML$$P50$$Gcambridge$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>164,314,776,780,27901,27902,55603</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mulcahy, Linda</creatorcontrib><title>Revolting consumers: a revisionist account of the 1925 ban on photography in English and Welsh courts and its implications for debate about who is able to produce, manage and consume images of the trial</title><title>International journal of law in context</title><addtitle>International Journal of Law in Context</addtitle><description>This paper offers a revisionist history of the banning of photography in English and Welsh courts in 1925 and explores the contention that a complete rationale for the ban has never been adequately articulated. While existing accounts of the ban have placed emphasis on the outrage caused by press coverage of a handful of sensational murder trials, this paper offers the first comprehensive analysis of photographs of trial scenes in the decades leading up to the ban. In doing so, it argues that the exposure of the legal system to scrutiny by the press and public, made possible by new technologies and reporting practices, was much more pervasive than has previously been suggested. It also contends that, although parliamentarians claimed that the purpose of the ban was to protect vulnerable members of the public, it actually did a much better job of preserving the interests of the legal, political and social elite, including judges, against a backdrop of fears about an increasingly disrespectful populace. More particularly, it is suggested that the ban allowed the state to take back its monopoly over the production, management and consumption of images of judges and other key actors in the courtroom in an effort to re-impose social order and retain the mystery of law.</description><subject>20th century</subject><subject>Bans</subject><subject>Cameras</subject><subject>Criminal justice, Administration of</subject><subject>Debates</subject><subject>Fair trial</subject><subject>Photography</subject><subject>Pistorius, Oscar</subject><subject>Social media</subject><subject>Social networks</subject><subject>Technological innovations</subject><subject>Trials</subject><issn>1744-5523</issn><issn>1744-5531</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1Uctu1TAQjRBIlMIHsBuJLRf8yosdqgpFqoREW7G0xo6TuErsYDut-ov9Kpze27JAXc3o6JwzZ2aK4j0lnyih9ecLWgtRlozThhDCBH1RHG3Qriw5ffnUM_66eBPjNSG8aXh7VNz_Mjd-StYNoL2L62xC_AIIwdzYaL2zMQFq7VeXwPeQRgO0ZSUodOAdLKNPfgi4jHdgHZy6YbJxBHQd_DZT7rIypPgA2FztvExWY8rOEXofoDMKkwFUfk1wO3qwmawmA8nDEny3avMRZnQ4mAeTQ8hslJH4GCkFi9Pb4lWPUzTvDvW4uPp2enlytjv_-f3HydfznRa8TLuKlUqIvmqrFjvBO9H3ldKakk41pq4pa6q2EbyttajQ1ARJqRQzosdatUoRflx82PvmfH9WE5O8zku6PFIyyqumpKRpM4vuWTr4GIPp5RJy6HAnKZHby-R_L8uas70mzDZJHGxckowGgx6ldflcG-zDIDtvNxvOafVIY4QxmieTetshW_HDeJxVsN1g_qV8PsBfehKz9A</recordid><startdate>20181201</startdate><enddate>20181201</enddate><creator>Mulcahy, Linda</creator><general>Cambridge University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20181201</creationdate><title>Revolting consumers: a revisionist account of the 1925 ban on photography in English and Welsh courts and its implications for debate about who is able to produce, manage and consume images of the trial</title><author>Mulcahy, Linda</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c435t-625b44f6969ad43d4ff6bcc10db8e771286984397c46ae70a05bb2e4fa7b9bb03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>20th century</topic><topic>Bans</topic><topic>Cameras</topic><topic>Criminal justice, Administration of</topic><topic>Debates</topic><topic>Fair trial</topic><topic>Photography</topic><topic>Pistorius, Oscar</topic><topic>Social media</topic><topic>Social networks</topic><topic>Technological innovations</topic><topic>Trials</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mulcahy, Linda</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>International journal of law in context</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mulcahy, Linda</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Revolting consumers: a revisionist account of the 1925 ban on photography in English and Welsh courts and its implications for debate about who is able to produce, manage and consume images of the trial</atitle><jtitle>International journal of law in context</jtitle><addtitle>International Journal of Law in Context</addtitle><date>2018-12-01</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>14</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>559</spage><epage>580</epage><pages>559-580</pages><issn>1744-5523</issn><eissn>1744-5531</eissn><abstract>This paper offers a revisionist history of the banning of photography in English and Welsh courts in 1925 and explores the contention that a complete rationale for the ban has never been adequately articulated. While existing accounts of the ban have placed emphasis on the outrage caused by press coverage of a handful of sensational murder trials, this paper offers the first comprehensive analysis of photographs of trial scenes in the decades leading up to the ban. In doing so, it argues that the exposure of the legal system to scrutiny by the press and public, made possible by new technologies and reporting practices, was much more pervasive than has previously been suggested. It also contends that, although parliamentarians claimed that the purpose of the ban was to protect vulnerable members of the public, it actually did a much better job of preserving the interests of the legal, political and social elite, including judges, against a backdrop of fears about an increasingly disrespectful populace. More particularly, it is suggested that the ban allowed the state to take back its monopoly over the production, management and consumption of images of judges and other key actors in the courtroom in an effort to re-impose social order and retain the mystery of law.</abstract><cop>Cambridge, UK</cop><pub>Cambridge University Press</pub><doi>10.1017/S1744552318000241</doi><tpages>22</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1744-5523 |
ispartof | International journal of law in context, 2018-12, Vol.14 (4), p.559-580 |
issn | 1744-5523 1744-5531 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2136851089 |
source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library; Cambridge University Press Journals Complete |
subjects | 20th century Bans Cameras Criminal justice, Administration of Debates Fair trial Photography Pistorius, Oscar Social media Social networks Technological innovations Trials |
title | Revolting consumers: a revisionist account of the 1925 ban on photography in English and Welsh courts and its implications for debate about who is able to produce, manage and consume images of the trial |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T07%3A04%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_rmit_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Revolting%20consumers:%20a%20revisionist%20account%20of%20the%201925%20ban%20on%20photography%20in%20English%20and%20Welsh%20courts%20and%20its%20implications%20for%20debate%20about%20who%20is%20able%20to%20produce,%20manage%20and%20consume%20images%20of%20the%20trial&rft.jtitle=International%20journal%20of%20law%20in%20context&rft.au=Mulcahy,%20Linda&rft.date=2018-12-01&rft.volume=14&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=559&rft.epage=580&rft.pages=559-580&rft.issn=1744-5523&rft.eissn=1744-5531&rft_id=info:doi/10.1017/S1744552318000241&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_rmit_%3E2136851089%3C/proquest_rmit_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2136851089&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_cupid=10_1017_S1744552318000241&rft_informt_id=10.3316/agispt.20221108077712&rfr_iscdi=true |